"In contrast, Mitt Romney has never been involved in energy issues or evinced any serious interest in the subject. While his 59-point campaign platform includes the same stock phrases endorsing the goal of energy independence that have decorated the planks of every presidential hopeful (of either party) since 1976, he opposes the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency, so there is little reason to believe that anything will change. For his advisers on energy policy, Romney has assembled a group of Bush-administration bureaucrats including:

James Connaughton: As head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality for eight years, Connaughton supported and implemented cap-and-trade programs for dealing with air pollutants and, according to his archived White House profile, coordinated “comprehensive climate change strategy, clean technology initiatives, [and] environmental cooperation agreements with our free trade partners.”

Jeff Holmstead: As EPA air chief for Bush, Holmstead was the self-proclaimed architect of “key parts” of Bush’s climate-change initiative. His interstate clean-air rule set the precedent for the current EPA’s economy-wrecking Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

Edward Krenik: As the congressional-affairs liaison for the Bush EPA, Krenik helped craft the (ultimately unsuccessful) legislative strategy for the Clear Skies Act, which aimed to implement cap-and-trade programs for NOX, SO2, and mercury emissions from power plants. After leaving the EPA, Krenik joined Holmstead as a senior principal at Bracewell and Giuliani, a law firm specializing in helping clients deal with the EPA....

Gingrich seems to understand the depth of this problem well enough to propose the only adequate solution, which is abolition of the EPA. Romney, in contrast, has staffed his energy team with creatures drawn from the environmental-protection-litigation racket, whose essential interests require that the game play on, regardless of the cost to the nation’s security, prosperity, and freedom. While Romney’s regulators might be less pernicious on some issues than their sparring partners currently occupying the environmental-agency thrones — by approving the Keystone pipeline, for example — their one original proposal advanced thus far, awarding drilling permits preferentially to established companies using established technologies, is a formula for suppressing entrepreneurship and technological innovation. Those who hope for better from Romney’s energy advisershave only to look at their record; from 2001 through 2006 they held office with the backing of a Republican president, House, and Senate, and the imperative of a nation confronted by soaring oil prices and a petroleum-funded jihad.

MSNBC anchor Chuck Todd appeared indifferent to this attack, agreeing, "right." That area of Florida, of course, is where fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough represented when he was a member of Congress. No word yet on how Scarborough has reacted."...via Mark Levin

Federal employees with a professional degree or doctorate received 18 percent lowertotal compensation than their private-sector counterparts, on average.

Overall, the federal government paid16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers."...

Wages: "Federal civilian workerswith no more than a high school education earned about 21 percent more, on average, than similar workers in the private sector."...

"“In January of 2006, I was one of the first people to write why Romneycare would be bad for Massachusetts,” Pipes said. “In fact, it hasn’t achieved universal coverage. … Insurance in Massachusetts is the most expensive in the country, even though there is an individual mandate.”

“Romneycare is a microcosm of Obamacare,” she said.... "Sally Pipes, the renowned health care expert and president of the Pacific Research Institute." (scroll down) via John Hendrix

"IN A HORRIFIC assault in Center City on Saturday night, three teenagers who were spouting racial slurs pulled a man out of a cab to beat him. And when the cabdriver intervened to stop the assault, the teens turned their rage on him, police said yesterday.

About 8:25 p.m., a cab was stopped at a red light at 15th and Chestnut streets when two 17-year-old boys and a 15-year-old boy approached and started calling the male passenger in the back seat racially derogatory names, police said.

When the cabbie got out of the car to see what was going on, the passenger ran away and the teens turned on the cabbie. They punched him in the face, kicked him and threw a liquid on him, police said.

Despite being outnumbered, the cabbie grabbed a tire iron from his trunk, at which time the teens ran away. The driver flagged down a police officer, and the three boys were arrested. They were charged as juveniles with aggravated assault and related offenses.

The cabbie suffered an injury to his right eye and had abdominal and side pain, police said. The passenger remains unidentified.

Police said the three teens were black and the cabbie and passenger were white. Police did not immediately know whether the teens would or could face hate-crime charges.

According to police records, the cabbie worked for Liberty Taxi Co., but a dispatcher working there yesterday was surprised none of the drivers he'd spoken with were aware of the assault. Police declined to provide the name of the driver, so the dispatcher could not confirm whether he was an employee.

"This would be something that would be big news," the dispatcher said. "It would have been a highly charged moment that drivers would be talking about."" via Gateway Pundit

"Small business owners who depend upon the economy in the Gulf of Mexico are still victimized by the ripple effects of the moratorium Team Obama put into place after BP oil well explosion in April 2010, documents Greater New Orleans, Inc. after surveying approximately 100 Louisiana-based companies directly involved in the offshore oil and gas industry, led by marine services and ship owners/operators.

* 13% of business owners have lost all of their personal savings as a result of the slowdown

Even if the current administration’s anti-energy policies are reversed, this study demonstrates that there is an opportunity cost in terms of lost business that will never be recovered. As the Pelican Institute has previously reported, over 10 oil rigs have already left the Gulf and more could leave soon in the absence of a reasonable regulatory environment that allows for robust energy production on the part of those companies with a proven safety record."...via Tom Nelson

"An adopted teenager was arrested on murder charges after police found the bodies of his parents, two highly-educated civil servants, stashed under a blanket inside the family car....

Colleagues of the couple also told the San Francisco Chronicle that the couple had been having problems with their son, who they believed was spending too much time in the Occupy Oakland camp. Poff, who attended UC Berkley, and Kamin, a graduate of Stanford University, met through friends. The couple adopted because they were unable to have their own children, Robert Kamin's brother Bruce told the Chronicle. They had recently moved to the area and were in the middle of renovating their house." via Atlas Shrugs

“I pledge allegiance to a flag of the imperialistic, capitalistic dictatorship. And to the plutocracy for which it stands, privately owned central bank,under the Jews. With inequality and injustice for the 99.” (h/t Moonbat Tracker)

"Newt's flat tax would do a lot more to attract capital, spur growth and reduce compliance costs."

"If we judge both leading contenders in the Republican primary, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, by what they've done in life and by what they propose to do if elected, either one could be an excellent president. But when it comes to the election's core issue—restoring a healthy economy—the key is a good tax plan and the ability to implement it.

Mr. Gingrich has a significantly better plan than does Mr. Romney, and he has twice before been instrumental in implementing a successful tax plan on a national level—once when he served in Congress as a Reagan supporter in the 1980s and again when he was President Clinton's partner as speaker of the House of Representatives in the 1990s. During both of these periods the economy prospered incredibly—in good part because of Mr. Gingrich.

Jobs and wealth are created by those who are taxed, not by those who do the taxing. Government, by its very nature, doesn't create resources but redistributes resources. To minimize the damages taxes cause the economy, the best way for government to raise revenue is a broad-based, low-rate flat tax that provides people and businesses with the fewest incentives to avoid or otherwise not report taxable income, and the least number of places where they can escape taxation. On these counts it doesn't get any better than Mr. Gingrich's optional 15% flat tax for individuals and his 12.5% flat tax for business. Each of these taxes has been tried and

tested and found to be enormously successful.

Hong Kong, where there has been a 15% flat income tax on individuals since 1947, is truly a shining city on the hill and one of the most prosperous cities in history. Ireland's 12.5% flat business income tax propelled the Emerald Isle out of two and a half centuries of poverty. Mr. Romney's tax proposals—including eliminating the death tax, reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%, and extending the current tax rates on personal income, interest, dividends and capital gains—would be an improvement over those of President Obama, but they don't have the boldness or internal integrity of Mr. Gingrich's personal and business flat taxes.

Imagine what would happen to international capital flows if the U.S. went from the second highest business tax country in the world to one of the lowest.Low taxes along with all of America's other great attributes would precipitate a flood of new investment in this country as well as a quick repatriation of American funds held abroad. We would create more jobs than you could shake a stick at. And those jobs would be productive jobs,

"If this doesn't change, do you know what the Florida legislature is doing? They are writing Allen West's district out of existence. I get e-mails from people, "Look at what Romney's doing." I got e-mails over weekend from people, I must have had 15 e-mails, "If Romney's behind this..." And he may well be. The Republican establishment could well be. He's a Tea Partier, and he got to Washington and he didn't toe the line and he didn't shut up and he didn't go to the end of the line and he didn't do what he was ordered to do.

He continued to speak out, said the same things that got him elected. He's a great guy, military veteran, Allen West, and they're trying to write his district out of existence. Florida Republicans are trying to -- in redistricting, write it so that Allen West has no district -- and the Republican establishment, whether it includes Romney or not, is behind it. Well, it's amazing. The all-out assault on conservatives in the Republican Party is what is the story of this primary campaign....

After last Thursday's Republican debate, in the spin room, one of Romney's guys was Florida Representative Will Weatherford. And during the course of his remarks he's trying to spin for Romney after the debate, it's reported that he shed a very dim light on the ongoing redistricting process in the Florida legislature.

"West’s congressional district inexplicably sheds the most out support as compared to all other incumbent Republican and Democrat Congressman. A few weeks back we quoted an unnamed legislator saying that, 'Allen West was screwed', a statement which was originally made about made five months before the purposed maps were made public, leading insiders to believe that the fix was in against Allen West. But in light of Weatherford’s comment, it is increasingly clear that this is a fait accompli." It is going to happen. Weatherford is a Romney guy, and this is why people think that Romney's behind this. And many people do.

"According to Weatherford, those preliminary maps will not change -- at the most, any additional changes would be minimal, and those changes would not make any appreciable difference from the preliminary maps," the ones that, again, write out Allen West. "In addition, Weatherford stated that a deal was struck between him, Senate President Mike Haridopolos, and Senator Don Gaetz to finalize these maps and push them through as soon as possible." And Weatherford, it is said here, tried to hide behind a need to comply with federal law. But, look, Florida's getting two additional seats. There's no reason to write anybody out. Florida is getting two additional -- because of the 2010 census. There's no reason to write West out. So there's obviously a political component to this. And, again, the Romney conspiracy is based on the fact that the guy in charge of redistricting is a former Romney supporter.

The Politico says: "Florida Speaker Designate Will Weatherford has been a surrogate for Mitt Romney in the past." Probably current supporter as well. And people ask, "Why does Mitt Romney care about congressional districts in Florida?" What it means is, what many have been trying to warn you of for a long, long time. And that is that the establishment Republicans are trying to take the Tea Party out. The establishment Republicans are trying to take the conservatives out. This is another reason why, in the Republican primary, there is such fevered opposition to Romney and people who despise -- you just heard the previous caller -- who despise the campaign that Romney's running.

Now, Will Weatherford, the Romney guy, is saying he's got no choice, that because of the Voting Rights Act you have to start the redistricting process with where black voters live, and then do the districts that way. It's federal law. You can't draw 'em anymore with political considerations or desires, even if you are the governing or the majority party. And he says it's these two new districts that are causing this, they gotta make room for 'em. I've got an audio sound bite coming up, I've just sent it up to Cookie, where Weatherford explains this in part. He said, (paraphrasing) "Hey, it's the Voting Rights Act and federal law, I've got no choice. Romney is not behind this." He doesn't say that, but that's the clear implication. "...

-------------------------------

Ed. note: More and more states have open primaries. I'll be working to effect that in NY State. Soon there will be no reason to be a registered Republican.

"There was breaking news last week of an upcoming meeting that has been called for the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) State Central Committee. Below (link) is an excerpt of the memo sent out to committee members....

Talk about tryingto protect their established incumbents! To be seated on the committee, a person will have to have voted in the Republican primary in 2008, 2010 and 2012. This is a pretty brazen move by Chairman Kevin DeWine and his allies. This rule, if adopted, is clearly intended to make it harder for outsiders to be seated on the State Central Committee, even if they are elected to the position.

The timing of this is no accident. There are two clear goals here.

1. Keep the Tea Party out. And this one isn’t new. Back in 2010, the ORP outraged many conservatives when it used the tea party brand and sent out mailers with a “Tea Party Values” logo that endorsed…Jon Husted. Ohio conservatives know that Husted can hardly be described as “Tea Party”.

(4/24/10): The Ohio Republican Party (ORP) after spending more than a year “Missing In action” as the Tea Party movement fought against the bailout, Cap and Trade and the Health Care bill, has finally swung into action. It is bombarding Republicans throughout the state with cards endorsing candidates for the State Central Committee in order to defeat … not liberal Democrats … but Republicans fromthe Tea Party movement.

A suit has been filed with the Ohio Elections Commission about the perceived violation of party rules and state law with these endorsements, which have not been authorized by the ORP’s governing board. In an initial review, the OEC ruled that there is “Probable Cause” and ordered that the case be held by the full Commission. In his defense, ORP Chairman DeWine argued that it was perfectly acceptable for the Party to endorse incumbents. However one incumbent who has a reputation for standing on principle against DeWine (Rousseau), was not endorsed by the Party; instead the Party endorsed his challenger.

So, even 2 years ago,the ORP was asking tea partiers for their votes and claiming that their preferred establishment candidates had “tea party values”. But when some of those same voters wanted to get involved by running for a seat on the committee,

It also is possible that the central committee could take up a proposal tabled at a previous meeting that would call for the endorsement of all incumbent central committee members for re-election in the March primary.

Now, with this new proposed rule, they’re planning to go even further to keep the Tea Party out.

2. To protect Kevin DeWine’s Chairmanship. The ORP knows that many of this years challengers to committee incumbents would vote against him in the next election for chairman. What better way to protect yourself than to create a new rule to make it harder for new people to the party to be seated on the committee?

COLUMBUS, Ohio – The Ohio Republican Party chairman wants to change the rules for who can serve on the party’s state central committee, a proposal that comes about a month before GOP voters elect the next 66-member group.

The move could help Chairman Kevin DeWine fend off a challenge to his leadership. DeWine and Gov. John Kasich are locked in a messy election-year battle for control of the party.

Perhaps the most outrageous partof this is the outright brazen timing. Candidates have already filed for the election. They’re already on the ballot! The election is only 5 weeks away. What are they going to do if a person is elected, but doesn’t meet their new rule? At least one candidate has already been identified as not meeting the proposed new criteria. They’re creating a recipe for chaos.

But apparently Kevin Dewine doesn’t care, as long as it helps him hold on to his chairmanship. He obviously isn’t confident about his fortunes, and is doing all he can to rig the system. This is just another example to add to the mountain of evidence that

Here’s Rush beginning approximately at the top of the third hour monologue:

Rush Limbaugh: “Now, I mentioned to you at the conclusion of the previous hour that people having been asking me how I feel all night long. I got, “Boy, Rush, I wouldn’t want to be you tomorrow! Boy, I wouldn’t want to have to do your show! Oh-ho. I’m so glad I’m not you.” Well, folks, I love being me. (I can’t be anybody else, so I’m stuck with it.) The way I feel is this:

I feel liberated, and I’m going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the waterfor people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, “Well, why have you been doing it?” Because the stakes are high! Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country’s than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

I believe my side is worthy of victory, and I believe it’s much easier to reform things that are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now I’m liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don’t deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don’t deserve it.

I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own. But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing. If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future — both in Congress and the administration — are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that’s liberating. I don’t say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don’t mean to make this too personal.

I’m not trying to tell you that this is about me. I’m just answering questions that I’ve had from people about how I feel.

There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can’t even make the case themselves — and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs.

I’m a radio guy! I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has. I was doing what I thought best, but at this point, people who don’t deserve to have their water carried, or have themselves explained as they would like to say things but somehow aren’t able to? I’m not under that kind of pressure.

Am I making myself clear on this, Mr. Snerdley? (interruption) No, I’m not lying. Snerdley’s concerned. I’ve not lied about anything I’ve said. Let me try this a different way. (sigh) I’m going to have to think about this. I tried to make it as clear as I can.

I’m not going to eat my own, and I’m not going to throw my own overboard, particularly in a campaign, and particularly when the country is at war — and I’m not going to do it for selfish reasons, and I’m not going to do it to stand out, and I’m not going to do it to be different. I’m not going to do it to draw attention from our enemies. I’m not going to do anything I do so that the Drive-By Media will like me or think that, “Ooooh, Limbaugh has changed! Ooooh, Limbaugh is coming around!”

That’s not my thinking. My thinking is: the left doesn’t deserve to win. My thinking is: the country is imperiled with liberal victory. We may not have the best people on our side, but they’re better than what we have on the left.

There hasn’t been in the ideology in the Republican Party, any conservatism for at least two to maybe four years.You could argue Bush was more of an ideologue in the presidential campaign of ‘04, but in looking at what happened yesterday, it wasn’t conservatism that lost. Conservatism won when it ran as a Democrat. It won in a number of places. Republicanism lost. RINO Republicans, country club blue-blood Republicans, this nonpartisan Republican identity, that’s what went down in flames.”"

"The unions’ battle against Walker’s reforms has rested on the argument that the changes would damage public services beyond repair. The truth, however, is that the reforms not only are saving money already; they’re doing so with little disruption to services. In early August, noticing the trend, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that Milwaukee would save more in health-care and pension costs than it would lose in state aid, leaving the city $11 million ahead in 2012—despite Mayor Tom Barrett’s prediction in March that Walker’s budget “makes our structural deficit explode.”...

Back in 1959, Wisconsin became the first state to let public employees unionize. The unions spent the next half-century productively, generating lavish benefits for their members. By the time Walker took office in 2011, the overwhelming majority of state and local government workers paid nothing toward the annual contributions to their pension accounts, which equaled roughly 10 percent of their salaries per year. The average employee also used just 6.2 percent of his salary on his health-insurance premium. Among Walker’s reforms, therefore, was requiring employees to start paying 5.8 percent of their salaries, on average, toward their pensions and to double their health-insurance payments to 12.4 percent of their salaries. These two changes, Walker estimated, would save local governments $724 million annually, letting him cut state aid to localities and reduce Wisconsin’s $3.6 billion biennial deficit....

What had the unions most up in arms, however, was a reform that ended mandatory dues for members. Wisconsin unions were collecting up to $1,100 per member per year in these obligatory payments,which they then spent on getting sympathetic politicians elected. In the last two elections, for instance, the state’s largest teachers’ union spent $3.6 million supporting candidates. Walker’s reform meant that government workers could now opt out of paying these dues—savings that could help offset those workers’ newly increased health and pension payments, the governor said. The unions knew that, given the option, many of their members would indeed choose not to write a check—and

that this would strangle union election spending....

The collective-bargaining component of Walker’s plan has yielded especially large financial dividends for school districts. Before the reform, many districts’ annual union contracts required them to buy health insurance from WEA Trust, a nonprofit affiliated with the state’s largest teachers’ union. Once the reform limited collective bargaining to wage negotiations, districts could eliminate that requirement from their contracts and start bidding for health care on the open market. When the Appleton School District put its health-insurance contract up for bid, for instance, WEA Trust suddenly lowered its rates and promised to match any competitor’s price. Appleton will save $3 million during the current school year....

Over the summer, a sign surfaced that the public wasn’t as alarmed by the Walker agenda as the unions would have liked. ...

The manner in which the public unions ran the campaigns was telling. Because they realized that public-sector collective bargaining wasn’t the wedge issue that they’d expected, not a single union-backed ad mentioned it— even though it was the reason that the unions had mobilized for the recall elections in the first place. Instead, the union ads cried that Scott Walker had “cut $800 million from the state’s schools.” This was true, but the ads neglected to mention that the governor’s increased health-care and pension-contribution requirements made up for those funds, just as Walker had planned. That the unions poured nearly $20 million into the races, by the way, validated another argument of Walker’s: that mandatory dues are a conduit through which taxpayer money gets transferred to public-sector unions, which use it to elect Democrats, who then negotiate favorable contracts with the unions. In this case, the newly strapped Wisconsin unions had to rely heavily on contributions from unions in other states. In the end, Republicans held four of the six seats and retained control of the Senate. Democrats nevertheless bragged about defeating two incumbents, but that achievement was more modest than it appeared. One of the Republican incumbents was in a district that Barack Obama had won by 18 points in 2008. The other losing Republican had been plagued by personal problems relating to his 25-year-old mistress. Meanwhile, two of the challenged Republicans, Alberta Darling and Sheila Harsdorf, won more decisively than they had in 2008"....via Instapundit

----------------------------

Ed. note: If Governor Walker finds himself with free time (via recall) in the next few months, how about "Walker for President?"

Last September, the human rights organization American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), of which I am executive director, filed suit against the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority's restriction of free speech and sanctioning of Jew-hatred in the city's subways. Jew-haters can run ads suggesting that Israel's self-defense is the obstacle to "peace." But our ad calling terrorism against innocent civilians "savage" was banned, deemed "demeaning" and "insulting" to savages. And now, in response to our discovery motion, we have received some highly revealing documents showing how the MTA acted inconsistently and out of political bias in rejecting our ads....

What is so unnerving about the MTA emails is the casual acceptance among MTA staffers of anti-Semitism, their casual acceptance of the anti-Israel ads, and their knee-jerk negative reaction to my simple and true ad. And on a not unrelated note, the e-mails between the mainstream press and the MTA are very cozy. Jennifer Fermino of the New York Post reassures the MTA in a September 20 e-mail that a story about our pro-Israel ads had been set to be on the front page, but was moved off the front page and reduced: "Now its only 7 inch story, very short.""....(MTA emails at link.)

The 10-member family – one husband, two wives, seven children who were all Ms. Yahya's progeny – settled in Montreal in 2007 after fleeing Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in 1992 and spending years in Pakistan, Australia and Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates....

The defendants pleaded not guilty to what the prosecution contended was a carefully planned but clumsily executed quadruple murder, disguised as an accident, committed chiefly to cleanse the Shafia name and reputation of shame brought about by the victims’ rebellious conduct, particularly Zainab’s and Sahar’s interest in boys and dating.

‪The trial began Oct. 20 and in its final weeks it drew big crowds, often lining up well ahead of time for a spot in the 150-seat courtroom.

It was also expensive. A police source directly involved in the case estimatedthe final tab will run into millions of dollars.‬...

Barb Jagger, 52, who for a couple of weeks shared a cell with Ms. Yahya...

She recalls her cellmate as quiet, pleasant and evidently deeply religious. She would pray five times a day, Ms. Jagger said, and often read the Koran. ...

The fourth person in the vehicle was Mr. Shafia’s first wife, Rona Amir Mohammad, 53, who had entered Canada illegally, posing as his cousin, but who in fact was part of a polygamous marriage....

=====================

One of the now dead daughters feared for her life and asked police to place her in a foster home but they wouldn't. The article won't even say the word Islam. 4 people are dead, the police ignored the girl's plea because everyone is afraid of Islam.

This story also refuses to say the word Islam. It says one of the girls had a "Christian boyfriend" but how is that relevant if they won't mention the family is Islamic? It at least reports one daughter was forbidden to attend school for a year and at one point fled to a shelter in fear of her father. No one intervened because they're all afraid of Islam.

"Zainab, the oldest daughter, was forbidden to attend school for a year because she had a young Pakistani-Canadian boyfriend, and she fled to a shelter, terrified of her father, the court was told.

The prosecution said her parents found condoms in Sahar's room as well as photos of her wearing short skirts and hugging her Christian boyfriend, a relationship she had kept secret....

Shafia's first wife wrote in a diary that her husband beat her and "made life a torture," while his second wife called her a servant....Shafia's first wife was living with him and his second wife. The polygamous relationship, if revealed, could have resulted in their deportation."...

The demonstration comes after Occupy protesters said earlier this week that they planned to move into a vacant building and turn it into a social center and political hub. They also threatened to try to shut down the port, occupy the airport and take over City Hall."...photo AP

The telephone survey of 800 registered Florida voters — all likely to vote in the general election — was conducted Jan. 24-26 for The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, Tampa Bay Times [this is the St. Petersburg Times recently renamed], Bay News 9 and Central Florida News 13.

The poll was conducted by MasonDixon Polling & Research, a nonpartisan, Jacksonville-based company.

Gingrich is badly trailing Romney by 11 percentage points, garnering just 31 percent of likely Republican voters heading into Tuesday’s presidential primary, according to a Miami Herald/El Nuevo Herald/Tampa Bay Times [until recently known as the St. Petersburg Times] poll released late Saturday night."...via Free Republic

"“The Cuban voters here will probably be more homogenous in how they vote than in other parts of the state,” said Dave Custin, a top-tier Miami-Dade political consultant.

“Cubans don’t like to throw their vote away, unless they feel the need to cast a protest vote,” he said. “But Romney does have some problems. Cubans are either Catholic or hard-line Christian-conservative voters. A lot of them don’t like that Romney is Mormon. And they think he’s a Massachusetts liberal. Cubans watch Fox. They listen to Martha Flores at night on Spanish radio. But they listen to Rush Limbaugh during the day.”"...

"As a rising young Chicago politician in 1995, no one campaigned more actively than Mr Obama for an amendment to the US Community Reinvestment Act, legally requiring banks to lend huge sums to millions of poor, mainly black Americans,guaranteed by the two giant mortgage associations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was this Act, above all, which let the US housing bubble blow up, far beyond the point where it was obvious that hundreds of thousands of homeowners would be likely to default. Yet, in 2005, no one more actively opposed moves to halt these reckless guarantees than Senator Obama, who received more donations from Fannie Mae than any other US politician (although Senator Hillary Clinton ran him close)."...via Tom Nelson

The justices today said they will review a lower court decision that said the EPA had discretion under the Clean Air Act to refuse to regulate tailpipe emissions on the grounds that more scientific and technical studies were needed. The Bush administration had urged the court not to consider the case.High court involvement raises the prospect of new regulations on automakers including General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., companies already facing sales slides. Depending on how broadly the court rules, the case might also affect utilities, which have fought efforts to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases from power plants.

``This case goes to the heart of EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time,'' the states and environmental groups argued in their appeal. Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is leading the group."...

--------------------------------

The Supreme Court 5-4 decision came out a few months after Romney left office, but Mass. brought the suit v the EPA 4 years earlier (in 2003). Romney may smile and say he didn't personally litigate the case. It is also true it was litigated with taxpayer paid state employees during the entire 4 years he was in office, lead by his AG, an employee of Mass. for the purpose of criminalizing every taxpayer in the United States. As chief executive of Mass. Romney could and should have withheld public employees from using taxpayer time on a matter intended to criminalize the entire US.

"Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could “avoid taking further action” now was “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.....

Court cases around the country had been held upto await the decision in this case. Among them is a challenge to the environmental agency’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, now pending in the federal appeals court here. Individual states, led by California, are also moving aggressively into what they have seen as a regulatory vacuum....

Even in the nine months since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the first case, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1120, and accelerating since the elections in November, there has been a growing interest among industry groups in working with environmental organizations on proposals for emissions limits....

If the decision sowed widespread claims of victory, it left behind a prominent loser: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who argued vigorously in a dissenting opinion that the court never should have reached the merits of the case or addressed the question of the agency’s legal obligations.

His dissent, which Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. also signed, focused solely on the issue of legal standing to sue: whether the broad coalition of states, cities and environmental groups that brought the lawsuit against the environmental agency four years ago should have been accepted as plaintiffs in the first place....

Massachusetts, one of the 12 state plaintiffs, met the test, Justice Stevens said, because ithad made a case that global warming was raising the sea level along its coast, presenting the state with a “risk of catastrophic harm” that “would be reduced to some extent” if the government undertook the regulation the state sought.

In addition, Justice Stevens said, Massachusetts was due special deference in its claim to standing because of its status as a sovereign state. This new twist on the court’s standing doctrine may have been an essential tactic in winning the vote of Justice Kennedy, a leader in the court’s federalism revolution of recent years. Justice Stevens, a dissenter from the court’s states’ rights rulings and a master of court strategy, in effect managed to use federalism as a sword rather than a shield....

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Massachusetts v. EPA’:

Date of the Trial: November 29th, 2006

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard.

Accused Criminal Activity:The following criminal activity and charges were cited by citizen petitioners – via the State of Massachusetts against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The State of Massachusetts mandated that the EPA was in direct violation of the precepts latent within Environmental Law, which is comprised of statues expressing the regulatory procedures with regard to the mitigation of pollution and the organization of federal measures undertaken in order to protect the collective human health within the United States upon the denial to regulate Greenhouse gasses."